Game_boy wrote:Of course Argentina will say it wasn't an invasion, but I think Yakk was trying to argue it objectively wasn't an invasion?

I think he was going more with sarcasm. As in, of course it will be an invasion but Argentina will claim something totally different. Just like plenty of countries have done throughout history.

sigsfried wrote:For those who wish to argue that self determination is the entire argument then had Argentina when it gained the islands expelled, or worse executed, the islanders would Britain have had no right to retake them?

Erm, seen as how expelling the islanders would constitute a violation of the right of self-determination, and executing them would be a war-crime, are you saying Argentina should be allowed to get away with such actions?

No of course Argentina should not have done such a thing, but if the right rests purely on self determination then if there are no islanders (for any reason) what right would Britain have had to the islands? I would suggest that while self determination is the most important reason for the stats quo to remain it is not the only reason. Equally if self determination was all that mattered removing the government of the Turks and Caicos islands would have been wrong.

sigsfried wrote:No of course Argentina should not have done such a thing, but if the right rests purely on self determination then if there are no islanders (for any reason) what right would Britain have had to the islands? I would suggest that while self determination is the most important reason for the stats quo to remain it is not the only reason. Equally if self determination was all that mattered removing the government of the Turks and Caicos islands would have been wrong.

Similarly, if we just killed everyone in South Korea, the North could take over and we wouldn't have a divided peninsula anymore.

...

I don't see why we have to contemplate the impact genocide would have on the affected population's right to self-determination. It's still a British possession and they would likely be able to repopulate the island with settlers. (I don't see how the entire population of the islands could be destroyed by a natural disaster or internal strife in any reasonable time frame.)

sigsfried wrote:But of course the point Argentina makes is that Britain dispelled by force the previous settlement. Executing a couple of those there.

Lets say Argentina had removed the population, how long would Britain have to retake the islands, before they stopped being a legitimate complaint?

If the islanders are British citizens at the time then I would imagine the UK would view invasion as an act of war and subsequent executions of non-combatants as war crimes. The resolution for an act of war is, likely, highly different than the resolution to a vote on self-determination. As in, likely one side sues for peace after feeling the issue at hand has either been avenged or is no longer worth* fighting over.

Argentina didn't exist then. Spain should be claiming the islands. While we're at it, let's take away all of Brazil that encroaches past the papal line of demarcation drawn out by the treaty of Tordesillas because the Portuguese weren't allowed to settle there and give it to the Spanish speaking countries.

As for the question of how long do you have to wait - it's hard to say, but 100 years should definitely be enough to cover it, especially if it hasn't been an issue for most of that time (if there's active unrest and moving of borders, then it's hard to say).

'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'

sigsfried wrote:A long time ago, but that doesn't make the allegation go away.

It might not make the history or allegation of eviction go away, but time does make the legitimacy of a territorial claim fade. If it didn't, the whole of Europe would spend all day arguing over the last 1500 years of who owns what, and would never get anything done. Britain has had continuous sovereignty over the islands for over 150 years, and if I've read the history right it's not particularly clear who was in charge before that, and it was an American ship who turfed the previous Governor out.

And please, stop bringing the Turks and Caicos up as a counter-point to the right of self determination. The British Government did not remove the T&C's Government on a whim. They balanced the right of self determination against the rule of law, decided that temporarily the rule of law was more important, and will restore the T&C's government when they can. It's a hugely different situation to that on the Falklands.

And please, stop bringing the Turks and Caicos up as a counter-point to the right of self determination. The British Government did not remove the T&C's Government on a whim. They balanced the right of self determination against the rule of law, decided that temporarily the rule of law was more important, and will restore the T&C's government when they can. It's a hugely different situation to that on the Falklands.

The British government alleges corruption and therefore can remove the government? There are surely better alternatives. Money for policing etc. could have been a more natural first step. Anyway my only point is that the British government does not consider, in all other cases, self determination to be the single overriding principle.

EDIT: Or to put it in to full context Australia did not get the final piece of independence until March 1986. Would you accept that there were in 1985 no circumstances that could have arisen, no matter how severe, that would have justified the UK dismantling the Australian government. Not even the 1975 crisis came close to justifying such draconian action. Yet allegations of corruption were enough to see the government of the Turks and Caicos islands removed, and far from the speedy return to power the have yet to be the elections that a self imposed deadline of last year made.

Given that the people of South America, not just Argentina, reject self determination in this case I just wish they would make a more broad case.

I do believe the islands should remain British, for as long as they want to, but I strongly believe the current approach Britain is taking is letting the islanders down by economically isolating them. It isn't that long ago that there were bilateral resource deals done with Argentina. Now Falklands vessels cannot use their own flag and will be delayed in Argentine ports, even if flying British flags.

sigsfried wrote:The British government alleges corruption and therefore can remove the government?...

The British government did not allege corruption. Other people alleged corruption, and then the British government held an enquiry which upheld the allegation. How would more policing have helped? The enquiry was the policing. They didn't just rock up one day and decide to remove the government overnight. Once they had decided that the top levels of the T&C government were corrupt, what were they supposed to do? This isn't a simple case of holding new elections ASAP, the country has to be kept going in the meantime. The T&C Islands only have a population of 45,000. That's not really enough to support the multiple competing branches of Government somewhere like the US or UK has to keep an eye on corruption.

Anyway my only point is that the British government does not consider, in all other cases, self determination to be the single overriding principle.

It's not the single overriding principle. It is the most important one.

EDIT: Or to put it in to full context Australia did not get the final piece of independence until March 1986. Would you accept that there were in 1985 no circumstances that could have arisen, no matter how severe, that would have justified the UK dismantling the Australian government.

Once again, that's a totally different situation. Australia is (and was) a country of several million people that was already practically ruling itself by 1986, with a long-standing, functioning parliamentary system (As I understand it. I am not an expert on Australian history). They're on completely different scales!

Given that the people of South America, not just Argentina, reject self determination in this case I just wish they would make a more broad case.

Are the arguments presented by Argentina/South America convincing for rejecting self determination? If not, why do we need to make a broader case? For the South American countries other than Argentina, I can't see much more than opportunism driving their actions. I am wondering how much of the hyperbolic rhetoric is a consequence of the 30 years anniversary coming up. Hopefully things will calm down after that.

Quite simply it can be proven through historical records that the settlers on the islands were NOT evicted by the British. In fact there is a lot of evidence to say that not only were they not evicted, but they were actively encouraged to stay on the island, which many of them did. The orders issued to the captain of HMS Clio and the captains report of his actions are documented and recorded in the archives. Also there are descendants of the original settlers still living on the islands today, and grave stones for the ones that died.

Charles Darwin was in the islands shortly after the events of 1833 and wrote about the bleak islands and its settlers in his journals, also recorded in the archives.

When Louis Vernet first settled the islands he asked for British permission, which was provided. He also asked for protection. If Vernet was on the Falklands with the British permission, why would they then kick him out? The British only took action to re-assert sovereignty after the Argentines landed a garrison on the islands (illegally) and tried to set up a penal colony. It was this that caused the British to take action, and the garrison was kicked out.

In 1849 the British and Argentines made an agreement called the Convention of Settlement, at which the Argentines GAVE UP their claim over the Falklands. Yes Really. The Argentines claim that they have never given up their claim, but this again can be disproven through the archives. The Argentines made NO REPRESENTATIONS to the British at all from the Convention of Settlements right up until after the second world war, when the Peronists came along. It is even recorded on several occasions that the Argentine government representatives stated that there were NO OUTSTANDING ISSUES between the governments. (There was one hiccup in 1888 when the Argentines re-drew their maps and included the Falklands on them, but they actually apologised to the British Government for it.)

The modern Argentine claim on the Falklands is believed by several historians to have originated from a book written by the son of a German Immigrant named Julius Goebels. His book, 'The Struggle for the Falklands' has been viewed by some to contain many historical inaccuracies and some glaring errors. (i.e. 1833). It was also void of any history following the 1833 incident, which means it makes no mention of the Convention of Settlement. It was this book that was translated in to Spanish and circulated to every school in Argentina. It became a part of every Argentines history learning about the islands and is viewed by some to be the catalyst for the Falklands War. Every Argentine is indoctrinated, it seems, into a false record of History.

I hate it when newspapers do that. There's nothing wrong with giving both sides of an argument, but giving their stated positions word-for-word and just leaving it at that is annoying. Do a bit of investigative journalism! Tell me which claims hold up and which don't!

It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Diadem wrote:I hate it when newspapers do that. There's nothing wrong with giving both sides of an argument, but giving their stated positions word-for-word and just leaving it at that is annoying. Do a bit of investigative journalism! Tell me which claims hold up and which don't!

Bah. The BBC can't win! If they said the UK claim was stronger they'd be dismissed as biased. So they present both sides' arguments even-handedly and get slammed for that too!

(Obviously they aren't going to come out and say the Argentinian argument is stronger cos it's clearly terrible! ;p )

Diadem wrote:I hate it when newspapers do that. There's nothing wrong with giving both sides of an argument, but giving their stated positions word-for-word and just leaving it at that is annoying. Do a bit of investigative journalism! Tell me which claims hold up and which don't!

And that should be in a separate article, perhaps an online blog from their Argentine correspondent. I think it's more annoying when newspapers put editorialising into the part of the article that should be stating facts so people can get familiar with the situation.

The BBC isn't perfect but there are so many better targets for neutrality criticism in the UK press and worldwide than them.

The Reaper wrote:Evolution is a really really really long run-on sentence.

Diadem wrote:I hate it when newspapers do that. There's nothing wrong with giving both sides of an argument, but giving their stated positions word-for-word and just leaving it at that is annoying. Do a bit of investigative journalism! Tell me which claims hold up and which don't!

And that should be in a separate article, perhaps an online blog from their Argentine correspondent. I think it's more annoying when newspapers put editorialising into the part of the article that should be stating facts so people can get familiar with the situation.

Yes, they should stick to the facts in their regular reporting, I agree.

But they should stick to *true* facts. So they should fact-check. Including fact-checking claims made by either party.

If Mexico claimed California because they have had it in continuous possession from 1491 to 1982, when it was invaded and conquered by the USA, I fully expect a newspaper reporting on that story to give both sides of the argument, and then state that the Mexican claim is, in fact, utter bullshit they just made up. That wouldn't be editorialising. That would be giving the facts.

It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

I concur with you. However, just to give a bit of context, the BBC has a couple of institutional problems that lead to articles like the above linked one more often than they should. The main one is that as they are state-funded they go out of their way to appear neutral, especially since the Dr. David Kelly incident, and doubly especially about anything to do with Foreign Policy to preserve the reputation of the World Service.

Diadem wrote:If Mexico claimed California because they have had it in continuous possession from 1491 to 1982, when it was invaded and conquered by the USA, I fully expect a newspaper reporting on that story to give both sides of the argument, and then state that the Mexican claim is, in fact, utter bullshit they just made up. That wouldn't be editorialising. That would be giving the facts.

Well, if Argentina's claims were as weak as your fictitious example this whole thing would be a non-issue. I presume therefore that if you were to contact the Argentine authorities that they'd have a whole phone book of citations ready for you.

This BBC article couldn't be an exhaustive analysis of the strength of one side's historical sources vs the other side's because it would either be like a huge Wikipedia article or it would simply say 'The BBC investigated this section and the consensus of historians favour the UK's argument' or 'The BBC investigated this section and historians are split on whose argument is stronger' and it would be an unconvincing 'appeal to authority' - which anyone unwilling to trust the impartiality of the BBC would simply dismiss as bias.

How would weak Argentinian claims matter? They have shown willingness to go to war over the issue, are currently engaged in a trade war over it, and engage in jingoist propaganda aimed at their own citizens and other nations of South America. Even of everything they claimed as a justification was a an obvious lie or fabrication the belligerence and existence of hostile action would make it an issue. Class that "of course they have a point, they mist if they are willing to kill for it" puts the justification before the horse.

(Note that this post doesn't presume their claims are weak -- but rather, the fact that the claims matter doesn't mean that they aren't weak or inaccurate.)

elasto wrote:Well, if Argentina's claims were as weak as your fictitious example this whole thing would be a non-issue. I presume therefore that if you were to contact the Argentine authorities that they'd have a whole phone book of citations ready for you.

The main difference is that Mexico isn't demanding California back from the US, nor has it launched an invasion in the last 50 years.

Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

Yakk wrote:How would weak Argentinian claims matter? They have shown willingness to go to war over the issue, are currently engaged in a trade war over it, and engage in jingoist propaganda aimed at their own citizens and other nations of South America. Even of everything they claimed as a justification was a an obvious lie or fabrication the belligerence and existence of hostile action would make it an issue. Class that "of course they have a point, they mist if they are willing to kill for it" puts the justification before the horse.

(Note that this post doesn't presume their claims are weak -- but rather, the fact that the claims matter doesn't mean that they aren't weak or inaccurate.)

It matters because of how the world would respond to an Argentinian invasion. If their claims were as weak as the fictitious example then Argentina going to the UN or invading the Falklands would result in widespread condemnation, sanctions or even a 'coalition of the willing'. I assume one of the reasons so many stayed neutral in the last Falklands war and in the current appeal to the UN is precisely that Argentina's arguments aren't trivially baseless - that they do require a level of depth of expert analysis to overturn - and that depth of expert analysis is why the BBC can't just dismiss each Argentinian argument with a trivial 'this argument is baseless'.

(Of course, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Argentina's arguments are trivially baseless - in which case I'm slightly annoyed the UK hasn't and isn't receiving more active support from the world on this issue!)

To be clear, my argument isn't "of course they have a point, they must have if they are willing to kill for it" - it's "of course they have a point, they must have else the rest of the world is being gigantic assholes leaving the UK near alone in defending the Islanders!"

The islanders are of little strategic importance. Defending them generates little political hay back home. No superpower is bribing nations to join such a coalition. They have a first world protector. Between those, why would you expect such a coalition? On top of that, the UK is less likely to act like a petulant child than a third world dictatorship, so the downsides to saying that Argentina is uttlery wrong is greater. When there is little upside to intervening and much downside, why would you expect intervention? The few thousand islanders could go hang as far as most of the world is concerned - it isn't as if far worse things are done by petty dictators all the time. Right now thousands are dieing in a Syria, and millions are being oppressed, and the International community CAN'T even generate a strongly worded letter.

One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Is it really unreasonable to expect our allies to make a statement in our favour? After all surely part of being in an alliance is you don't always look solely towards your individual interest (well at least not in a short term way). That said maybe we damage ourselves too much by doing whatever the USA asks no matter what the USA does. Gives America no reason to pay even a slight amount of attention when they know the worst that will happen is private condemnation, and public support.

Similarly it is disappointing to see that even some of the Commonwealth supports Argentina over this, though interestingly among the more predictable supports (within the Commonwealth) of Australia and Canada, the most vocal is, apparently, Rwanda (which shows my understanding of history as I could have sworn they were never part of the British Empire).

sigsfried wrote:Is it really unreasonable to expect our allies to make a statement in our favour?

Exactly. If "Mexico claimed California because they have had it in continuous possession from 1491 to 1982, when it was invaded and conquered by the USA" do you seriously think most countries wouldn't even make a statement in favour of the truth? Do you think even countries like Iraq and North Korea would come out and publicly support Mexico in their stand?

My point is simply that many countries are making neutral statements on the Falklands issue and some are even backing Argentina's arguments - so it cannot be as clear cut as the example you gave. If Argentina's arguments could be totally dismissed with a few minutes of Googling then this issue would simply have no legs - therefore I am concluding they can't be. That's not 'proof' it's just me applying some common sense. Doesn't mean my own conclusion personally isn't that the UK has by far the stronger case though.

And hence we're back to exactly what I said: Either the BBC has to keep the article short and say 'just trust us, we investigated both side's arguments and Argentina's were rubbish' - in which case people will just dismiss the article as biased - or they can make the article ten times longer and most people will get lost. That's not the job of the BBC. If you want to do an in-depth investigation of the arguments of both sides start from the citations in Wikipedia, make a judgement on their credibility and expand on out from there.

sigsfried wrote:Is it really unreasonable to expect our allies to make a statement in our favour?

My assumptions about the situation (which I think are reasonable, but may be a little too optimistic) is that the UK's supporters have yet to rally around the UK because it's not clear whether Argentina intends to actually attack the islands, or if this just boils down to a huge PR stunt by the Argentine government. Argentina's supporters all have an incentive to jump right in, but the UK's supporters benefit more from a "wait and see" attitude. There's also the fact that the islands are of little strategic importance and although the UK is doing the right thing by protecting the Falklands, very little is actually at stake here.

I also think people may be less concerned with who has the better claim than with who wants the land more badly. Some people would probably be willing to hand over the islands just to get the Argentines to shut up about it.

They weren't. They joined for the benefits and because many of their neighbors are in the Commonwealth. Same with Mozambique.

Ok so turns out my understanding of the modern world is terrible then, I had thought there had to be a constitutional tie to the current members, I even could have sworn I knew what declaration had decided that (Edinburgh and the earlier Harare). Funny the tricks ones mind can play on you.

My assumptions about the situation (which I think are reasonable, but may be a little too optimistic) is that the UK's supporters have yet to rally around the UK because it's not clear whether Argentina intends to actually attack the islands, or if this just boils down to a huge PR stunt by the Argentine government.

A military attack is of little concern but the economic attacks being put in place at the moment are highly damaging.

sigsfried wrote:Is it really unreasonable to expect our allies to make a statement in our favour?

Exactly. If "Mexico claimed California because they have had it in continuous possession from 1491 to 1982, when it was invaded and conquered by the USA" do you seriously think most countries wouldn't even make a statement in favour of the truth? Do you think even countries like Iraq and North Korea would come out and publicly support Mexico in their stand?

Why wouldn't they?

I can think of a few, but they wouldn't be based on the truth of the statement, but rather on the fact that the USA is a pretty big kid on the playground who plays rough.

If you replace USA (who actually has lots of ability to project power, both economic and military) with the UK (which has more than most nations, but isn't about to overthrow your nation next week because they said you where in the axis of evil because you where rude to them).

One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

elasto wrote:... so it cannot be as clear cut as the example you gave. If Argentina's arguments could be totally dismissed with a few minutes of Googling then this issue would simply have no legs - therefore I am concluding they can't be. That's not 'proof' it's just me applying some common sense...

Then your common sense is broken.

A controversy in political or popular opinion does not indicate there is actually any factual controversy. It is up to you to recognize the existence of the controversy and investigate the actual facts, rather than just use the existence of the debate to give merit to both sides. That's frequently called 'teaching the controversy' and it's a crock of shit obfuscating, at best. Only by evaluating the facts, can you gauge whether of not any particular side is just posturing.

Basicallly comparing the defensive abilities between 1982 and now. The conculsion as far as I can see is that it would be a lot harder for Argentina to capture the islands now but if they did manage it, Britian would struggle to take them back.

I am always a little cautious of Naval personnel saying we would struggle to retake/defend the Falklands. The Falklands are one of the few uncontroversial ways to push for increased defence, especially naval, spending.

Two cruise ships carrying almost 3,000 passengers have been turned away from an Argentine port, apparently because they had visited the Falklands.

The Adonia and the Star Princess had arrived off Tierra Del Fuego, on the country's southern tip, on Monday but were prevented from docking in Ushuaia.

Of course Argentine ships are allowed to visit the Falklands and return to Argentina, so this could just be a semi legitimate way of giving a boost to Argentina cruises, or it could be the signal of an increasingly dangerous move towards complete isolation of the islands, which when combined with the moves against Falklands fishing (the Argentine government is encouraging fishermen to fish to extinction (at least locally) fish that normally move into Falklands waters) could be highly detrimental Keplers.

And now Argentina is moving for an import ban, (well not actually an import ban they are asked Argentinian companies to not use British goods but hope that the lack of a formal ban will make it hard for Britain, and impossible for the EU, to complain).http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17200528

Isn't trying to starve a country pretty much1) genocide2) an act of war

In other words: Leaving political considerations aside, doesn't Britain, by international law, have ample justification by now, to bomb the shit out of Argentine? They obviously won't. But what Argentine is doing to the Falklands currently seems both highly unethical and illegal.

It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Trade sanctions are not an act of war, certainly haven't been thought of as such since the UN has been around. The islanders aren't that close to running out of food, but if the overfishing continues indefinitely things might get a little tricky.